HISTORY OF THE SHEPHERDING/DISCIPLESHIP MOVEMENT

Thomas R. Yoder
1991-2000
The Shepherding/Discipleship Movement is composed of groups and churches that usually adhere to the
cardinal doctrines of Christianity but exercise a control over their members lives that is unethical and
unorthodox. Such groups may be non-denominational, Protestant, Catholic, or both Protestant and Catholic, and
almost all take a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. Some Shepherding churches and communities require
a covenant commitment to attain membership, thereby ensuring the members loyalty, obedience, and
cooperation towards the group and its leaders.
This movement goes by many different names and variations. The most well known, apart from the
original terms shepherding and discipleship, are: pastoral care, mentoring, headship and submission, and
covering.
The Shepherding movement sprang up in several groups in the United States and South America almost
simultaneously in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The most well known of the early groups and their leaders
combined beliefs and practices from several sources. One source from the late 1960's was a Houston, Texas
inner city Episcopalian church (The Church of the Redeemer headed by the late Graham Pulkingham) which
began using a form of shepherding in caring for people with special needs who were brought into the members
homes. Later, that shepherding system was expanded to include most of the members of the churchs
charismatic community.
During this same time, former leaders of the aberrant 1950's Pentecostal Latter Rain Movement taught
that the proper church governmental model was the Five-Fold Ministries. The phrase refers to the presumed
hierarchical ordering of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers found in Ephesians 4:11-13.
They believe that the ultimate purpose of these Ministries is the unity of all believers and the possibility of
acquiring a divine nature. The Five-Fold Ministries doctrine also held that there are living apostles who are to
rule the church and, eventually, the world.
In 1966, the former Communist Douglas Hyde in his influential book, Dedication and Leadership:
Learning From the Communists urged Christians to adopt the Communist cell group methods to recruit, inspire
and train new members. Some of the Shepherding leaders used Hydes book as a guide. It was a misguided
methodology, although not a misguided loyalty. Those adopting such Communist methods did not understand
the inherent evil in them, and mistakenly thought they could control the demons in it.
Another instrumental element, the Cursillo movement, was brought to the United States from Spain in
the early 1960's. With it came a profound experience of community and renewed spirituality for those attending
a Cursillo weekend retreat. But it was a well-orchestrated retreat designed specifically for this purpose. Several
of the leaders of Catholic Shepherding groups were also leaders and writers for the Cursillo movement, and
borrowed from it the technology of the life-changing weekend retreat.
Some people mistakenly think the Shepherding Movement stems from Catholic monastic life. It does
not. Monastic life was not used as a model by the Shepherding leaders, many of whom are Protestants who
would never consider using anything Catholic for a model. Furthermore, there are many differences between
the two systems. Three such differences are that a monastery does not permit its spiritual director to be
simultaneously the head of the community, while Shepherding groups do. Also, all monks are equal under the
rule. And, Catholic church law allows for a right of appeal outside the monastery. Shepherding groups allow
only for appeal within the group.
Shepherding is more akin to discipleship under the masters taught in New Age and occult groups than
it is to monastic life. Although there is no apparent conspiracy, there is a thread from these groups to the
Shepherding Movement. The Theosophist Annie Besant wrote The Path of Discipleship in 1895, and Alice
Bailey of Lucifer Trust wrote Discipleship in the New Age, Volumes One and Two between 1936 and 1940.
The gnostic and former Theosophist Georg Gurgjieff, another practitioner of discipleship, influenced Norman
Grubb, who in turn influenced some Shepherding Movement leaders through World Evangelism Crusade and

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

The most prominent Shepherding leaders were Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Don Basham, Charles
Simpson, and Ern Baxter who were affiliated with Christian Growth Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Steve Clark and Ralph Martin, leaders of an early charismatic covenant community in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
called The Word of God introduced two of these men to the specific goals and methods of shepherding around
1972. Together with Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles who are leaders of the covenant community called
People of Praise in South Bend, Indiana, and Larry Christenson and Don Pfotenauer, these men formed the
somewhat secretive General Council which directed the main elements of the Shepherding movement from
1974 through the early 1980's. The Council sponsored the National Mens Shepherding Conferences in the mid
to late 1970's. The men on it controlled the major charismatic media of the day: New Covenant, Pastoral
Renewal, New Wine and Servant Publications. They attempted to influence Cardinal Suenens and other bishops
in the efforts of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II to bring the Catholic Charismatic Renewal into the heart
of the Church. That is, the Council attempted to keep control of the Charismatic Renewal out the hands of the
of any Christian churchs hierarchy, Catholic or Protestant. And, they attempted to form a single network of 80
or more charismatic covenant communities under their control consisting of those connected to the Word of
God, the People of Praise, and the Gulf Coast Fellowship. However, many Shepherding groups never came
under the umbrella of these men.
In 1974, several years after discipleship began, Juan Carlos Ortiz came to the United States from
Argentina. With the help of the late Jamie Buckingham, he wrote Call to Discipleship in 1975, which was the
first charismatic movement book on the practice of discipleship. There is no evidence that Ortiz began the
Shepherding Movement, or that he was a main leader of it, at least in the United States.
Some people join Shepherding groups at an emotionally low point or transitional stage in their lives.
But we should be careful not to assume that only those with problems are targets for recruitment efforts. Most
recruits are no more troubled or emotionally unstable than others. Statistics show that the incidence of mental
illness among those recruited by cultic groups is no higher than in the population at large.
Characteristics which attract people to these groups include: a sense of belonging and of love for one
another, a sense of importance in belonging to Gods special people, the feeling of being readily understood and
accepted, the discipline, idealism, and the promotion of a sexually pure lifestyle. In other words, much the same
kind of idealism that draws people to Mother Theresa or Billy Graham today, or to Francis of Assisi eight
hundred years ago, draws them to this movement. The distinction, though, is the hidden agenda. Billy Graham
and Mother Theresa have none. But those who join the Shepherding Movement eventually find the ideals
originally espoused to be secondary to the demands of obedience and conformity that underlie all else in the
group.
More importantly, though, those who join have been led to believe that their recruitment was part of
Gods plan for their lives -- that He put them in the area or circumstances to be evangelized by a member of the
group and that resisting those efforts would be a rejection of God.
New members are gained by love-bombing potential recruits. People are made to feel important, very
special, and extremely welcome in order to entice them to join. Many of the people in this movement are
Roman Catholic. Some Protestant groups include a large percentage of former Catholics. Most group members
are from a middle class or upper middle class background and are above average in intelligence.
Shepherding/Discipleship members are taught that Christians should be gathered in small groups of
sheep or disciples who have a shepherd over them. Shepherds have intense control over virtually all
aspects of the lives of sheep under them. A sheep divulges all his personal problems to his shepherd and
submits to the decisions made by his shepherd for the conduct and direction of his life. Those decisions would
include where and how one is employed, where one lives, whom one marries, and all financial decisions. To
question or challenge a shepherds advice or directives is considered rebellion. Those who cannot or will not
submit are forced out or shamed into leaving.
Each shepherd in turn submits to the authority of a shepherd over him pyramidically, so that as we get
towards the top of the pyramid, we see a tremendous amount of power concentrated in just a small number of
people. Because of the vast amount of money and numbers of people involved in the movement, some of these
groups wield a great deal of political influence.

The Shepherding Movement teaches that a shepherd provides his sheep with a covering, which is a
protection from sin and the demonic realm. Sheep must act in obedience to the shepherd who takes
responsibility before God for their actions. Even if one willfully and knowingly commits sin in obedience to his
shepherd, they believe that his action becomes righteous, because he has submitted to the authority of his
shepherd. Shepherds typically disavow any responsibility when there is a disaster resulting from their direction.
Members of Shepherding groups become extremely dependent on their groups. They are taught that
they will be vulnerable to Satanic attack without their groups protection. Some actually lose their ability to
make decisions by allowing their shepherd to take that responsibility for them. Others maintain some ability to
make decisions. Still others believe they make decisions completely on their own, while in fact they are so
indoctrinated that they behave in complete conformity to the group automatically or with subtle suggestions by
the leaders. They fear the world because of the black and white worldview presented by the group. (The
group is pure and pleasing to God -- all others are tainted and under Satans influence.)
Some Shepherding groups allow their members to maintain their ties with their denominational
churches, but ones primary allegiance is always to ones shepherd and group, rather than a church.
Most Shepherding groups consider all the churches too liberal and believe they themselves, the true
shepherds, are destined to lead the churches back to a more conservative and legitimate practice of the faith.
While convincing their members that the churches are seriously deficient, the leaders attempt to gain respect and
influence in the churches. The public relations image presented by the shepherding hierarchy conceals the
abuse of authority and destructive practices actually taking place.
Leaders of all shepherding groups are very authoritarian, although many acquired that trait from the
original leaders or through the groups indoctrination processes. Many have a charismatic personality. They
assume their positions of leadership without elections. Many claim a supernatural experience including a vision
or revelation from God indicating that God favors them above others. Some claim to be prophets or apostles
and some claim God has performed great miracles through them. Members are very impressed by these claims
while under the groups influence, but often realize after separating that there was no substantiation for such
claims.
Group services generate a great deal of emotion. Enthusiastic singing, vibrant music, the moving
testimonies of dramatic conversions, and the cajoling of a persuasive leader can produce an exciting experience.
The spiritual high feeling can become addictive and explains why some members endure the abuses in these
groups. Such experiences also produce trance-like states that leave members vulnerable to exploitation and
indoctrination.
Members lose their ability to evaluate information critically. They soon learn to equate obeying the
group leaders with obeying God, and disobeying their leaders with disobeying God. They eventually police
themselves, feeling guilty about even a thought disagreeing with the group leaders or doctrine. They suppress
their normal personalities and assume the group personality, exhibiting the group mannerisms and speaking in
the group terms. Women members are expected to acquire a gentle and quiet spirit which is reflected in their
soft-spoken voices.
Shepherding groups use fear and guilt to hold their members. They subscribe to the theory that as long
as someone is brought to Christ, it doesnt really matter how that goal is accomplished.
Members must be honest and open with one another and the group, although they are often encouraged
to lie or withhold information from outsiders that might prompt criticism. Sharing their innermost thoughts,
feelings, weaknesses, etc. with fellow members promotes closeness in a remarkably short time.
New recruits are molded into the groups view of what a Christian should be, what ones goals should
be, how one should behave, how one should dress, how one should relate to others inside and outside the group,
and even how one should think. Single men and women recruited into such groups frequently live communally
and progress through courses of instruction to foster a very holy but restrictive lifestyle.
Group members are taught to suppress any negative feelings and emotions about the group or lifestyle.
They are discouraged from asking uncomfortable questions that might expose the manipulation or undue
influence at work within the organization. They must distance themselves from relatives and friends who are
not members of the group. (These people are viewed as worldly or influenced by Satan). Members are
constantly monitored and they are often corrected or encouraged to improve in their attitudes or behavior.

Such frequent disapproval and demands for perfection result in a lowering of self-esteem.
In most Shepherding groups, young men and women are not permitted to date until the group leadership
considers them mature enough to marry. To be mature, one has had to become obedient to all the group
teachings and directives, and to conform to the groups standards and restrictions. Ones personality is altered.
Normal sexual attraction and any romantic feelings are looked upon as lusting and sinful, so those feelings
must be suppressed.
Many young men and women resent the restrictions on dating but dont buck the system for fear that
permission to date will be further delayed. Young people are often discouraged from dating someone theyre
attracted to in favor of someone the leaders feel would make a more suitable mate. After members leave these
groups, they realize that many of the marriages in the groups are influenced by or even arranged by the leaders.
Marriage is considered more utilitarian than romantic. The two parties, united in their efforts, can be
more effective for God. Husbands are to be the head of the household and provide financially, while wives are
to keep house, submit to their husbands, and care for the children. Group priorities take precedence over family
priorities.
As head of the household, husbands have the final say on family matters and decisions. Husbands are
pressured to run a tight ship with their wives and children in obedience to themselves and the group. Such an
arrangement, however, prevents the consideration of a loving partners advice or input. Many men become
exacting and overbearing with their wives because they fear criticism from leaders above.
The roll of a wife and mother becomes increasingly difficult as the family enlarges. Some groups
discourage family planning even if couples are already overburdened with more children then they can
adequately care for. Both husband and wife are expected to attend all group services, teachings, and activities,
often necessitating frequent use of baby-sitters. Wives are expected to assist in food preparation, cleaning, and
baby-sitting for social functions. They are expected to houseguests from out-of-town on little notice if the group
requests. Most women are worn out from the excessive demands made on their time and energy.
There is a great deal of pressure to be good parents. Children are to be well behaved and wellmannered. Many groups advocate harsh physical punishment for misbehavior, believing they are motivated by
a higher purpose which justifies such actions. It is very easy for overtaxed parents, under such teaching, to vent
their own frustrations while spanking, resulting in child abuse. Children frequently rebel during adolescence
because of the rigidly structured lifestyle, sometimes manifesting that rebellion through drugs, promiscuity, or
other inappropriate behavior. Some children, on the other hand, become unusually docile and passive.
Although Shepherding groups advocate a very moral and sexually restrictive lifestyle, sometimes a great
deal of illicit sexual activity actually takes place in these groups. Group members who experience sexual abuse
are inclined to blame themselves, particularly if the perpetrator of the abuse holds a position of leadership.
Children are sometimes victims of such abuse but are often too frightened and threatened to report it. Parents
who learn their children have been sexually abused sometimes cooperate with group leadership in handling the
abuse entirely within the group and not reporting it to the authorities. Sexual abuse issues are extremely painful
to deal with after group separation.
Those who leave Shepherding groups have many issues to face. Many of them are reevaluating their
marriages, trying to determine if they really love one another. Sadly, some of them realize that, other than the
group, they had little in common prior to the marriage and would never have married without the influence of
the group leadership.
It is painful, also, for parents to even consider that they could have been guilty of child abuse in
disciplining their children. Some would prefer to believe the group teachings on harsh discipline because of the
guilt they feel.
People in Shepherding groups experience a great deal of resentment which they suppress while in the
group. When they learn that their feelings were justified and normal, they relate how angry they became at the
groups interference in their marriages. They particularly resented those leaders who betrayed their confidences.
Women resent having been viewed as second class citizens in their group and the lack of opportunities for
women to use their talents and education more productively.
Those leaving Shepherding groups find it difficult to retain their friendships with others who have left.
It is stressful to have differences of opinion with people who previously agreed with you on everything.

Maintaining friendships with those still in the group is even more difficult, and often impossible.
The elitist attitude of group members results in criticism from outsiders and strains relations with family
members outside the group. Having previously cut close ties to friends and families, most couples yearn to
rebuild close relationships but wonder how to begin. They feel embarrassed and ashamed of their previous
behavior. They wonder if they should offer explanations or apologize for their actions. Some family
relationships are so ruptured that they will be difficult to heal.
Shepherding groups exhibit cult-like behavior in their use of the mind-control techniques identified by
Robert J. Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. They do not accomplish this by
completely isolating their members from society, but rather by making illegitimate in the minds of their
members all other sources of information and church authority. They present themselves as Gods Best and
describe other churches as lukewarm, hypocritical, or deceived. These groups spiritualize everything and they
have a no-lose approach with their members. Everything good that happens is because God is so pleased with
their joining the group. Anything disappointing or bad that happens is due to Satans attack and anger that
theyve joined.
The decision to leave a Shepherding group is difficult and stressful. Many are unhappy and chafe under
the control for years before they finally get the courage to do so. Those who depart are frequently shunned by
their group in order to pressure their return and to deter others from leaving.
Those victimized by these groups are usually embarrassed by their experience and feel humiliated,
exploited, and angry. Most are fearful of speaking out against their group publicly, but express concern for
those they left behind and guilt if they cant bring out of the group those they recruited. Those who were in
leadership positions seem to feel the most guilt because they participated in the exploitation of those under them.
Some former members find it impossible to attend any church services -- sometimes for years. They
yearn to worship God, but their emotional response to a church setting and preaching is too overwhelming. It is
not easy to trust again when one has been hurt so badly.
Time is needed to ascertain which group teachings were valid, and which teachings were aberrant or
extreme. Some former members are angry with God or the church for not protecting them from the abuses they
suffered. They eventually come to the realization that their leader has interfered with their personal relationship
with God.
Ex-members feel many ill effects from the group practices and are at a loss to know why they cannot
function normally. They need help from counselors who understand their experience as they deal with their
stress and reintegrate into society. Without effective help, some have nervous breakdowns and a few even resort
to suicide. Many find it extremely difficult to discuss their experience years after their involvement.
While the harm experienced by people in these groups is cause for concern and stimulates our
compassion for them, there are some beliefs and practices that should trigger alarm in all of us. Some of the
most well known Shepherding leaders advocate turning the United States into a kind of theocracy, like that in
Iran, except that it would be based on the Old Testament of the Bible rather than on the Koran. One group
openly advocating such a change is the Coalition on Revival.
Many of the beliefs of the Shepherding leaders are unorthodox and can lead to harm for themselves and
others. For example, they believe the whole world is in a war between God and Satan, with most of the world in
Satans control. Thus, the world is divided into the absolutely pure (those few Christians actively engaged in the
war) and the absolutely impure (everyone and everything thing else). Many of the most popular Charismatic
books today are on spiritual warfare. The trouble with this belief is that even the most saintly among us has
faults, and even the most evil are among those whom Christ loved so much He gave His life to redeem.
Another popular movement advocated by some Shepherding leaders is the prophetic movement. Its
advocates believe in personal prophecy that directs their lives and their groups. Yet, many of the prophecies are
shown to be misdirected or false. Many of the doctrines coming from the prophets are heretical. And some of
the prophets have been found to be morally bankrupt. In spite of this, followers continue to listen to their
prophets, and are told that any criticism is damnable. In fact, the leaders discourage most critical thinking and
instruct members to be guided by their spirit.
Many of teachings of the Shepherding and related movements border on the gnostic beliefs in salvation
by inner knowing, in the dualism of God and Satan as equals and opposites, in pure spirit versus impure matter,

in secret doctrines meant only for the initiated, and in the ability of Gods elect to attain divine nature. Finally,
most of these groups have a kind of magical thinking. They think that what they believe in will come to pass,
simply because they believe it. It is similar to the New Age belief that you create your own reality.
Those who deprive others of their individuality and free will commit grave injustice. In order to
experience the joy and freedom in Christ, we must follow the Good Shepherd rather than the self-appointed
shepherds who have become leaders.

Shepherding Movement Time-Line

Tentative, 1999
Annie Besant (Theosophy) The Path of Discipleship, 1895
lead to
Alice A. Bailey (Theosophy & Lucifer/Lucis Trust) Discipleship in the New Age, 1936-1940 called for the New
Seed Group
around 1920 lead to
Georg I. Gurdjieff (Fourth Way/Gnosticism) All And Everything, 1950
around 1935 lead to
Norman Grubb (World Evangelism Crusade and InterVarsity)
around 1946 lead to
Arthur Earle Frid (World Evangelism Crusade c. 1945-1972) Gods Glory Whence?, 1966
ALSO: beginning 1948 1949, the following men and ideas were added
William Branham, George Hawtin, Bill Britton, et. al. Latter Rain Movement: Five-Fold Ministries, Manifested
Sons of God (A/KA New Breed / Righteous Generation), Never-Die
ideas which influenced
Paul Cain, Ern Baxter, Stephen Clark, and many others. Paul Cain said he traveled with Branham and considers
Branham to be the greatest prophet of [at least] the 20th century. Ern Baxter was in the Latter Rain movement
and was William Branhams personal secretary.
ALSO: around 1950
Spanish Catholic spirituality and Spanish fascism (which was influenced by its reaction to and from Communism)
influenced
Opus Dei and the Cursillo Movement
which, around 1963
Began to significantly influence all who later became primary original leaders of the Catholic Charismatic
Renewal. Some the these CCR leaders where involved with the formation and running of covenant communities,
which were formed concurrently with the CCR itself.
about 1968
Arthur Earl Frid influenced and helped W. Graham Pulkingham (Church of the Redeemer c. 1965-1975) Gathered
For Power, 1972

Pulkingham in 1970-71 taught about discipleship to

Stephen B. Clark and Ralph Martin (Word of God 1967-1990)
Douglas Hyde published Dedication and Leadership: Learning from the Communists in 1966
Around 1970
Stephen Clark cited Hyde as a significant influence on himself, Ralph Martin, Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles
and also on
The Cursillo Movement and Catholic Charismatic Renewal (and perhaps also on Opus Dei, liturgical renewal
movement, and other 1960's Catholic renewal movements)
beginning around 1972
Martin & Clark gave the shepherding concepts and methods to and well as worked regularly with -- Don Basham,
Derek Prince, Ern Baxter, Charles Simpson, and Bob Mumford (Holy Spirit Teaching Mission in Ft. Lauderdale,
FL; latter called Christian Growth Ministries; and finally called Gulf Coast Fellowship)
Note: Charles Simpson has stated he began to practice discipling between 1965 and 1969.
about 1972,
Martin and Clark also gave Shepherding to and worked with Kevin Ranaghan and Paul DeCelles (People of Praise,
South Bend, IN)
also about 1972
Shepherding to and worked with James Byrne (True House, Notre Dame, IN, about 1970-1975)
in 1974
Clark, Martin, Ranaghan, DeCelles, Basham, Prince, Baxter, Simpson, and Mumford began The Council in order
to run the Shepherding Movement and to form a single united network of covenant communities, which they also
ran. Various others joined and left The Council including: John Poole, Don Pfotenauer, Larry Christenson, Bruce
Yocum. They sponsored the National Mens Shepherding Conferences beginning 1975.
1975
The WOG/POP confederation formed, the first of a network of covenant communities
also in 1975
Juan Carlos Ortiz and Jamie Buckingham Call to Discipleship, 1975 (written in 1974). Buckingham introduced and
praised Ortiz in 1974; compared him to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Watchman Nee (Introduction, Call to
Discipleship); demands dedicated Christians adopt Ortiz discipleship methods (op cit). As editor of Ministries,
Buckingham conducted an interview of Bob Mumford after Mumfords purported repentance of shepherding
around 1989. No evidence has yet been found that Buckingham ever acknowledged his own part in the
shepherding movement. Juan Carlos Ortiz also wrote Disciple, 1975 (pp 139-145 The Cell: involves devotion,

discussion, programming, mobilization, multiplication; p. 141 started discipleship in 1971). Neither Ortiz nor
Buckingham was part of The Council.
1981-1982
The WOG/POP confederation collapsed completely.
1983
Two new separate and competing networks were formed: Sword of the Spirit (WOG) and People of Praise.
Around 1987
The Gulf Coast Fellowship partially collapsed and re-grouped.
Around 1990
The Council ceased to meet, though it never formally dissolved. Also, Charles Simpson and 4 others formed the
Network of Christian Ministries.
Other major Shepherding Movement leaders and organizations include:
S
John Wimber (Vineyard Ministries)
S
John Paul Jackson, Paul Cain, Bob Jones, Mike Bickle (Kansas City Fellowship, a/k/a Metro Vineyard
Church). Originally separate from Vineyard, Wimber joined them and submitted to them around 1990, and
soon thereafter the KCF leaders submitted to Wimber.
S
Rick Joyner (Morningside Publications, South Carolina) - allied with Kansas City Fellowship
S
Bill Hamon (Christian International - Network of Prophetic Ministries) - independent as of 1991, but
working on developing a bond with Kansas City, et. al.
S
Bob Weiner (Maranatha Ministries)
S
Earl Paulk, John Meares, et. al. (Chapel Hill Harvester Church)
S
Dennis Peacocke
S
Christian Coalition
S
Coalition on Revival

THE WORD OF GOD COVENANT

Thomas R. Yoder
March 24, 1992
In its essence, a covenant is a promise made binding by an oath and that creates a new relationship.
The Word of God does not have a covenant. The document they refer to as a covenant lacks several key
elements that would make it one. The key missing elements include:
1)

2)
3)

There is no oath. There is no swearing, either implicitly or explicitly. The Word of God covenant
includes only a statement of intent, I want to ..., and mentions we desire and we promise.
Covenants require an oath, that is, a witness (usually divine) to the obligations of the covenant.
Furthermore, there is no new relationship formed by The Word of God covenant. Members are
Christians both before and after the commitment, and nothing new is added or changed.
Unlike a true covenant, there are no mutual obligations, that is, it is not a mutual relationship.
Commitments in The Word of God are from the bottom up.

There are also many ways in which The Word of God covenant differs from a true covenant, and resembles instead
a legal system. These differences include:
1)
2)
3)

4)

5)
6)

Cause and effect in The Word of God covenant are based on ritual or power. A true covenant sees
both cause and effect as historical. No social power can cause or prevent the effects of a covenant.
The Word of God covenant is maintained by a monopoly of force. This is law, not covenant.
The Word of God covenant relationship can be unilaterally dissolved by leaders without consent of
members, but it cannot be dissolved by members without consent of the leaders. The leaders make
and break the agreement. A true covenant can only be dissolved by mutual agreement, by death,
or by the relationship changing so much that it no longer reasonably exists.
The Word of God covenant is collective in its binding nature. That is, decisions of its leaders are
binding on all members, whether or not they agree or are consulted. This again is, in effect, a legal
system. A true covenant is individually binding. That is, an individual binds himself, and nothing
can be added later as binding.
Enforcement of The Word of God covenant is by the leaders. A true covenant presupposes only
divine enforcement.
The Word of God covenant norms are defined, as they are in a legal system. In a true covenant,
whose purpose is the establishment of a relationship, norms are undefined.

Perhaps the question needs to be asked why The Word of God calls this a covenant when it is not.
Covenant is a loaded term. It carries the weight of sin and guilt and strong emotion. It could be that
the leaders and members lack an understanding of what covenants are. But the answer also lies with the
principal founder of charismatic covenant communities, Stephen B. Clark, for he wanted control without
accountability. And he wanted to be able to dissolve the relationship at his will.

10